Jeffrey L Saver1. 1. Stroke Center and Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. jsaver@ucla.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Over the past decade, analysis of completed actual trials, model population studies, and theoretical work have improved approaches to selecting and analyzing end points in acute stroke treatment trials. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: Because stroke affects persons in their biological, functional, social, and experiential dimensions, measures of impairment, disability, handicap, and quality of life are all desirable in pivotal trials, with disability being most important. Scales that are valid, reliable, responsive, and easy to administer are preferred; consequently, the modified Rankin Scale has become the most widely used single clinical efficacy measure. Because stroke cripples and kills, most outcome scales array patient outcome in ordered ranks, spread over the entire range from normal to disabled to dead. Generally, shift analysis, analyzing all health state transitions concurrently, is the most efficient analytic technique to detect treatment effects, with sliding dichotomy less efficient and fixed dichotomy least efficient, unless treatment effects strongly cluster at 1 or a few health state transitions that can be prespecified. Test statistics must also take into account interpretability, ie, how well they can be converted into metrics capturing all outcomes the intervention might alter in proportion to the degree they are valued by the patient; full ordinal analysis is most informative, sliding dichotomy is intermediately informative, and fixed dichotomy is least informative regarding this global outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke trial power and interpretation can be substantially enhanced by adherence to the principles delineated in this review. Full ordinal and sliding dichotomy analysis will most often be advantageous compared with fixed dichotomous approaches.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Over the past decade, analysis of completed actual trials, model population studies, and theoretical work have improved approaches to selecting and analyzing end points in acute stroke treatment trials. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: Because stroke affects persons in their biological, functional, social, and experiential dimensions, measures of impairment, disability, handicap, and quality of life are all desirable in pivotal trials, with disability being most important. Scales that are valid, reliable, responsive, and easy to administer are preferred; consequently, the modified Rankin Scale has become the most widely used single clinical efficacy measure. Because stroke cripples and kills, most outcome scales array patient outcome in ordered ranks, spread over the entire range from normal to disabled to dead. Generally, shift analysis, analyzing all health state transitions concurrently, is the most efficient analytic technique to detect treatment effects, with sliding dichotomy less efficient and fixed dichotomy least efficient, unless treatment effects strongly cluster at 1 or a few health state transitions that can be prespecified. Test statistics must also take into account interpretability, ie, how well they can be converted into metrics capturing all outcomes the intervention might alter in proportion to the degree they are valued by the patient; full ordinal analysis is most informative, sliding dichotomy is intermediately informative, and fixed dichotomy is least informative regarding this global outcome. CONCLUSIONS:Stroke trial power and interpretation can be substantially enhanced by adherence to the principles delineated in this review. Full ordinal and sliding dichotomy analysis will most often be advantageous compared with fixed dichotomous approaches.
Authors: Gillian S McHugh; Isabella Butcher; Ewout W Steyerberg; Anthony Marmarou; Juan Lu; Hester F Lingsma; James Weir; Andrew I R Maas; Gordon D Murray Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Marc Fisher; Gregory W Albers; Geoffrey A Donnan; Anthony J Furlan; James C Grotta; Chelsea S Kidwell; Ralph L Sacco; Lawrence R Wechsler Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Randall T Higashida; Anthony J Furlan; Heidi Roberts; Thomas Tomsick; Buddy Connors; John Barr; William Dillon; Steven Warach; Joseph Broderick; Barbara Tilley; David Sacks Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-07-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: G P Samsa; D B Matchar; L Goldstein; A Bonito; P W Duncan; J Lipscomb; C Enarson; D Witter; P Venus; J E Paul; M Weinberger Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Mandip S Dhamoon; Ying-Kuen Cheung; Yeseon P Moon; Clinton B Wright; Joshua Z Willey; Ralph Sacco; Mitchell Sv Elkind Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2017-01-15 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Michael Söderman; Francis Turjman; Philip M White; Søren Jacob Bakke; Salvatore Mangiafico; Rüdiger von Kummer; Mario Muto; Christophe Cognard; Jan Gralla Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Michael Söderman; Francis Turjman; Philip M White; Søren Jacob Bakke; Salvatore Mangiafico; Rüdiger von Kummer; Mario Muto; Christophe Cognard; Jan Gralla Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Christy Cassarly; Renee' H Martin; Marc Chimowitz; Edsel A Peña; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Yuko Y Palesch Journal: Commun Stat Simul Comput Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 1.118
Authors: Sunil A Sheth; Reza Jahan; Jan Gralla; Vitor M Pereira; Raul G Nogueira; Elad I Levy; Osama O Zaidat; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Mandip S Dhamoon; Ying-Kuen Cheung; Jose Gutierrez; Yeseon P Moon; Ralph L Sacco; Mitchell S V Elkind; Clinton B Wright Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-01-26 Impact factor: 7.914